Interpreting Information (Text / Graph / Chart / Table)
Nick Featherstone & Joe Wolfensohn
Teachers
Contents
Introduction - Interpreting Data
What are interpreting data from graphs/tables questions?
Involves analysing visual data to identify trends, comparisons or specific values.
Answering questions that require understanding patterns, relationships or performing basic calculations based on the presented data.
Why is interpreting data from graphs/tables tested in the UCAT?
Assesses your ability to interpret data quickly and draw conclusions from it.
Helps you to identify data trends and to perform calculations quickly based on the information given.
Explainer Video
Filmed by our Maths department, this video walks through how to Interpret data from graphs/tables from first principles.
Worked Examples
Question 1 - Easy
Previous surveys estimated that sensitivity to caffeine from energy drinks, such as jitteriness or insomnia, may affect up to 60% of consumers. However, new international research based on data from over 3 million participants suggests it is likely less than 8%. Dr. Lena Martins of the University of Copenhagen noted that many reported side effects might actually stem from people’s expectations, influenced by hearsay or media rather than direct physiological response. She refers to this as the ‘expectancy effect’, where individuals experience symptoms based on what they believe the outcome will be, not what the substance actually does.
Place 'Yes' if the conclusion does follow. Place 'No' if the conclusion does not follow.
1. Three in five energy drink consumers will suffer from caffeine-related side effects.
2. Energy drinks are mostly ineffective at boosting alertness.
3. 92% of Danish participants in the study did not report caffeine side effects.
4. Stories from peers could contribute to reported sensitivity to caffeine.
5. The ‘expectancy effect’ may result in emotional distress after consuming caffeine.
Answer
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
Worked Solution
Work through each of the statements:
1. Three in five energy drink consumers will suffer from caffeine-related side effects.
-
The passage suggests the previous side effects in up to 60% (which is 3 in 5).
-
However new research is based on 3 million people shows it’s likely less than 8%.
-
Saying 3 in 5 will suffer is outdated and incorrect based on the new data.
Answer: No
2. Energy drinks are mostly ineffective at boosting alertness.
-
The passage is about side effects and caffeine sensitivity, not about how effective energy drinks are at boosting alertness.
-
It does not mention anything about performance or effectiveness.
-
The statement is unrelated to the information provided.
Answer: No
3. 92% of participants in the study did not report caffeine side effects.
-
The study found that less than 8% showed genuine caffeine sensitivity.
-
That means over 92% did not experience side effects.
Answer: Yes
4. Stories from peers could contribute to reported sensitivity to caffeine.
-
The text says many side effects may be due to expectations from hearsay or media.
-
This is essentially “word of mouth” - people being influenced by what others say.
Answer: Yes
5. The ‘expectancy effect’ may result in emotional distress after consuming caffeine.
-
The passage describes the “expectancy effect” as causing bodily or psychological symptoms.
-
That includes emotional symptoms due to belief, not the substance itself.
Answer: Yes
Question 2 - Medium
A furniture company manufactures two types of items: Chairs (Item C) and Tables (Item T). One unit of Chair C requires 10 labour hours, and one unit of Table T requires 30 labour hours. The table below shows combinations of units that can be achieved in a month using the available labour hours. Labour hours are the only limiting factor in production.
For example in a month a total of 900 chars and 0 tables can be made in a month. In a different month, a total of 600 chairs and 300 chairs can be made etc.
Machine Production Capacity Table
| Month | Chair (C) | Tables (T) |
| 1 | 900 | 0 |
| 2 | 600 | 300 |
| 3 | 300 | 600 |
| 4 | 150 | 675 |
Place 'Yes' if the conclusion does follow. Place 'No' if the conclusion does not follow.
1. A monthly order requiring 1,200 units of Table T alone cannot be fulfilled.
2. A target of producing 200 units of Chair C and 675 units of Table T cannot be achieved.
3. A target of producing 100 Chairs and 500 Tables may leave many workers sitting idle.
4. In an efficient system, if 500 Chairs are being produced, then the number of Tables produced must be lower than 300.
5. A target of producing 250 Chairs and 500 Tables may leave production capacity underutilised.
Answer
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
Worked solution
Work through each of the statements:
1. A monthly order requiring 1,200 units of Table T alone cannot be fulfilled.
- Maximum Total labour hours = Labour hours for chairs + Labour hours for tables = (150 x 10) + (675 x 30) = 21750 Hours Available
- 1200 Tables x 30 hours = 36,000 hours
- Only 21750 hours are available. Therefore, the answer is Yes.
2. A target of producing 200 units of Chair C and 675 units of Table T cannot be achieved.
- Chairs = 200 x 10 = 2,000 hours
- Tables = 675 x 30 = 20,250 hours
- Total = 2,000 + 20,250 = 22,250 hours
- Does not exceed the 21,750 hour limit available → achievable. Therefore, the answer is No.
3. A target of producing 100 Chairs and 500 Tables may leave many workers sitting idle.
- Chairs = 100 x 10 = 1000 hours
- Tables = 500 x 30 = 15,000 hours
- Total = 16,000 hours
- Does not exceed the labour capacity of 21,750 hours → more time available than work. Therefore, the answer is Yes.
4. In an efficient system, if 500 Chairs are being produced, then the number of Tables produced must be lower than 300.
- Chairs = 500 x 10 = 5,000 hours
- Remaining hours = 15,000 - 5,000 = 10,000 hours
- Max tables = 10,000/30 = 333.33 Tables
- You could produce more than 300 tables - the statement is incorrect. Therefore the answer is No.
5. A target of producing 250 Chairs and 500 Tables may leave production capacity underutilised.
- Chairs = 250 x 10 = 2,500 hours
- Tables = 500 x 30 = 15,000 hours
- Total = 17,500 hours
- Does not exceed the 21,750 hour limit - the target can be achieved and the production capacity will be underutilised. Therefore, the answer is Yes.
Question 3 - Hard
The graph shows the mean score of children’s grammar test scores in a population in five countries at two different times: Year 1 and Year 50 (50 years later). The change in mean score is higher in year 50 in all countries, except Country C, is related to changes in the education system.
Place 'Yes' if the conclusion does follow. Place 'No' if the conclusion does not follow.
1. Country A had the greatest change in mean score between Year 1 and Year 50.
2. The percentage increase in score for all the countries except for Country C was greater than 20%.
3. The mean of the test scores in Year 50 for countries C and D is greater than for countries B and E.
4. Country C saw no improvement in the children’s mean score due to a lack of investment in their education.
5. The mean score for Year 1 for all the countries is 26.
Answer
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. No
Worked Solution
1. Country A had the greatest change in mean score between Year 1 and Year 50.
- To save time, you can estimate this by looking at the graph. The greatest change in the mean score is Country A.
Therefore, the answer is Yes.
2. The change in percentage score for all the countries except for Country C was greater than 20%.
- Country A = 25-15/15 = 0.67 x 100% = 67%
-
Country B = 22-20/20= 0.10 x 100% = 10%
-
Country D = 28-22/22 = 0.27 x 100% = 27%
-
Country E = 20-17/17 = 0.18 x 100% = 18%
-
The percentage increase for E is not greater than 19%.
Therefore, the answer is No.
3. The mean of the test scores in Year 50 for countries C and D is greater than for countries B and E.
-
Mean test scores for C and D = 28+20 = 48/2 = 24
-
Mean test score for B and E = 22+20 = 42/2 = 21
-
The mean test score for C and D is greater.
Therefore, the answer is Yes.
4. Country C saw no improvement in the children’s mean score due to a lack of investment in their education.
- We are only told from the stem that there were change to the education system but we are not told that this is due to a lack of investment in education. We do not enough information to conclude this.
Therefore, the answer is No.
5. The mean score for Year 1 for all the countries is 26.
-
Mean score for Year 1 = 15+20+10+22+17 = 84/5 = 16.8.
Therefore, the answer is No.
Worked Examples Video